From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4FC6506C.9090609@xenomai.org> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:53:00 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FC637EB.90908@xenomai.org> <4FC63C53.3020805@xenomai.org> <20120530155743.GK32727@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120530155743.GK32727@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] a question about ADEOS List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Lennart Sorensen Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 05/30/2012 05:57 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> If the question is: why is not Adeos integrated in the mainline kernel ? >> the answer is that the kernel community has chosen another solution to >> enable real-time, and is not interested in integrating the Adeos patch. > > As a user of adeos and xenomai, I do look forward to the day xenomai works > with the other option so that a single scheduler can handle everything > and give much better control over things. But there is much work to be > done before that happens as far as I can tell. You can see for yourself with the xenomai-forge branch. It is already in a usable state. I do not buy the scheduler argument: the linux scheduler does pretty much the same separation between real-time and non real-time tasks as the separation which happens with xenomai. And the scheduler for real-time tasks is simple, it does not need to know much more than the tasks priorities, I do not see what more you would like to control. > > ipipe is an interesting solution, although not a particularly nice one. > It depends on your definition of "nice". It ends up being a relatively simple implementation which provides good latency results. -- Gilles.